I liked how there was a narrated disclaimer at the beginning, essentially stating this is a story about a boy meets girl - but it's not a love story. In many ways, this should serve as a cautionary tale. I know so many people like Tom, one of my brothers coming to mind, who find themselves in these circumstances - essentially creating a world of unhappiness onto themselves despite the direct caution of the one they're pursuing. Time to bust out some Psychology. Viktor Frankl coined the term "Sunday Neurosis" to refer to the dejection one feels at the end of the work week when they're life otherwise has no meaning. As a result, they resort to excesses and compensatory behaviors that can be damaging. In Tom's world (and many others), he's found himself complacent with the job he has - creating greeting cards - rather than pursuing something that would make him more happy: architecture. Along comes Summer, an object of his affection that suddenly gives his life purpose and direction: he must have her and prove they were meant to be together, seeing their superficial commonalities as signs of justification which reminded me of the song "Breakfast at Tiffany's" where the singer from Deep Blue Something croons "what about Breakfast at Tiffany's?" - they both seemed to like the film and so hey, that's the one thing they've got in common to relate to. Anyway, I don't want to get too far ahead of myself here as some of my thoughts will spill over into the next few days - but I've personally always felt you have to be in a place and time in your life where you're happy and the potential significant other is as well with their own life because relationships that last share in each other's happiness. If one person is unhappy, then the other is more or less being used to compensate for whatever is lacking to fill the void. That's why, to me, this isn't about Tom finding the right girl - it's about Tom finding his true purpose, and it takes meeting Summer and going through his resulting despair to find it. Is it no coincidence that Tom meets "Autumn" when he finally decides to follow his heart rather than a girl? Summer even questions it several times why isn't he pursuing his dream of being an architect, asking specifically "what is your passion?" For us guys who may have perused the internet dating sites and snickered at those women who say something cliched like "I don't care what he does, as long as he's happy doing it" - there's truth to this and I think Summer was too smart to allow herself to be a surrogate for that happiness. It's something Tom needed to find for himself.

I didn't mind the movie the first time I saw it (which was a while ago), but after reading the screenplay, I now realize I didn't mind the movie because I didn't mind the lead actors. I think this is a fairly ordinary story at its core, which worked because of a variety of screenwriting special effects. I do not think it would have worked in a linear narrative, the story is just not strong enough. Next, it's too Tom-centric (which wouldn't have been a problem if Tom wasn't so self-indulgent). This is a subjective screenplay about a character who lacks objectivity. The narrative sequence, the voice-overs, the split-screens are all means to one end: make us feel sympathetic towards this character (e.g. the omniscient narrator who pops up with insights into Summer's life or character, wherever convenient, whenever we're supposed to feel a particular way about Tom). The screenplay didn't do justice to Summer's character (but since the screenplay is written from a subjective point of view, I guess this makes sense). My point is that I like movies to have at least some level of objectivity (especially if you're using an omniscient narrator on occasion), otherwise it risks becoming personal rant. That said, the screenplay is not without its strengths: it's a quick, easy read (which is commendable because we're jumping back and forth quite often). The biggest strength from a screenwriting perspective, in my opinion, is the "voice" (I say this is a strength even though I don't necessarily like the tone or agree with it). The voice shines through every scene, every line of scene-description. Tom Hansen could've been a co-writer. There's a very distinctive style to the writing, used effectively to make reading the screenplay easier (e.g. the split-screen bit was cleverly written). Cheers, Bash

TBBB said: That’s why, to me, this isn’t about Tom finding the right girl – it’s about Tom finding his true purpose, and it takes meeting Summer and going through his resulting despair to find it. This articulation of the story helped me make an apt movie comparison: Shakespeare in Love. Both stories follow the path you note above. Plus: * Both Protagonists begin the story living on the surface of life. * Both have a true creative calling, but are caught up in a state of Disunity including patterns of behavior that keep them from tapping into their Core Essence. * Both are romantics. * Both fall rapturously in love with a woman. * Both lose the woman. * And in that process, both manage to deconstruct their Old Way of living, tap into their Authentic Self, and emerge in touch with their creativity. What's also interesting is if we straightened out (500) Day so the plot laid out in a linear fashion [something I'm going to do for tomorrow's post], we see that both movies share another dynamic: Whereas most Deconstruction movements in a story have a negative feel to them insofar as the Protagonist's Old Ways of being are being bashed about as they stumble their way through the New World [strangers in a strange land], in these two movies, that dynamic is flipped. In the first half of Act Two [the linear version of (500) Days], Tom is wildly in love with Summer, and in Shakespeare Will is wildly in love with Viola. So that feels like a positive thing, even though it is, in fact, deconstructing their Old Ways [patterns of behavior that kept them chained to doing nothing, writer's block, etc]. The same happens with Reconstruction: Whereas that is normally has a positive feel to it as the P begins to build a 'new' persona based on their True Being, if we straightened out (500) Days, we'd see that for both Tom and Will, realizing that they can not be with their lovers, destiny is pulling them apart, this is a negative experience, but a crucial one as it forces them to bust through the final layers of their defense mechanisms, and tap into their Core Essence. One difference, however: In Shakespeare, his path is clear: Now that he has experienced the heights of rapture and the bitter depths of sorrow, he can now go on to become William Shakespeare: Playwright. However in (500) Days, the ending is, at least for me, inconclusive. We think has gotten his shit together, but then when he meets Autumn, is she really a reward for having tapped into his Core Essence, or is she yet another woman with whom Tom will make the same damn mistakes he did with Summer, view her through his overly romanticized lens of life? After all, the last image is the title: "Day 1."

Bash wrote: My point is that I like movies to have at least some level of objectivity (especially if you’re using an omniscient narrator on occasion), otherwise it risks becoming personal rant. That's an interesting point, but in trying to imagine what this movie would be like with more of an objective viewpoint, I just can't see it. In some ways, the whole point of the movie is to see every single experience through the POV of Tom because the story is about his skewed world view, a romanticized take on love going back to a fundamental misreading of The Graduate. You know what I would love to see? A version of the movie taken from Summer's POV. She goes through an interesting metamorphosis -- from I guess we could say cynicism or realism, to a place where she suddenly fell in love, something she denied could happen. I guess a He Saw / She Saw set of movies. Re your last point: I call that "Narrative Voice," the invisible character in a script, the attitude the screenwriter takes in their writing, especially scene description, tied to this formula: Genre + Style = Narrative Voice. One could argue that the screenwriters' choice to break every screenwriting rule, something they decided as they conceived the story, is an expression of their Narrative Voice. And as you note, it is consistent and present throughout, really making the script a lot of fun to read. I'll be curious to see if others have the same critique as you, Bash, about the subjectivity of the script. Actually I had a reverse experience as you: I liked the script [which I read before seeing the movie], and was pretty tepid about the movie when I first saw it [not in a theater, big mistake]. Then I saw it again in a theater setting a few months back, and really liked the movie this time.

I shamefully admit I've only seen Shakespeare in Love once, shortly after it was released on video. But your comparison makes me want to go back and watch that, too. Another one of Frankl's quotes comes to mind: When we are no longer able to change a situation - we are challenged to change ourselves. There is something to be said about Tom trying to control a situation he's only part of the equation to - once he realizes he doesn't have control of it, he's forced to realize the only thing he has control of is himself. The best we can ever do with others is influence them (a positive attribute vs. the negativity of control). In this regard, Tom takes control of his destiny and seeks that higher level of self-fulfillment by choosing to follow his passion. And to pull out my Dr. Drew, lol, that's why I think most relationships fail: one side or the other hasn't reached that level and, as a result, tend to bring a negative atmosphere to a relationship which leads to a suffocating dependency on the other. If both sides are that way, now you've got a recipe for co-dependency which only makes matters worse - and boy do I ever know a lot of people living this way.

I didn't have a problem with the subjective nature. The movie called for it because the audience needed to be in Tom's shoes and not privy to too much other perspective other than some of Summer's to establish her own and allow their relationship throughline to do its thing. Some movies are constructed like that. Black Swan, for example, wouldn't have worked if we were given a more objective look at the story instead of seeing much of it through Nina's eyes. This seems to be the case when there is a main character suffering from some type of neurosis where they're blinded to reality, the reality here in (500) Days of Summer being that Tom is simply blinded by love.

I might really struggle to say anything meaningful regarding what I think about this script, because I just read it and all I see is the movie I saw. Insightful stuff, I know. I liked the movie quite a bit when I first saw it, and I've caught it a couple more times since and haven't changed my opinion. It's not gonna be to everyone's taste, and were someone to mount a criticism along the lines of so-smarmy-it-could-eat-itself-smoke-and-mirrors-hipster-bullshit, I'd accept it. And I'm combative by nature (not to mention, always right). But that's not how I felt about it. Much as such criticisms are frequent and fair game, this screenplay/movie pulled off something that probably happens about once every other year (at best) in this genre: it was different. A different look at love, a different angle on relationships that echoes thoughts and feelings we've all had to some degree (you have, admit it). I don't like Zooey Deschanel. Didn't like her before this, won't like her ever. Never seen her do anything to suggest she's got something I want to see on screen (unless we get seedy). She's a weird-eyed, manic pixie girl psycho, ice-cold and somehow soaking wet at the same time (not meant in a seedy way). That being said, she was perfect in this. I always felt like it was half the point - hey, we've got Zooey playing her, of course she's a bitch, he'll thank us in the end. I'm rambling. I thought the writing in (500) Days was spectacular. Putting the whole non-linear thing to one side (which I thought was executed brilliantly), the writing screams self-assurance sans showiness. There's a perennial debate about writer asides and unfilmables and all that jazz, and it's a real tightrope. Some pull it off, most irk the shit out of you. Big brownie points to the writers here, because it was, to my mind, damn near flawless (damn near - they jumped the shark with the whole AND THEN WE FADE THE FUCK BACK IN bit at the end, but it's a solitary bum note). There's a terrific writer's voice in there, and it doesn't intrude because it compliments the story so well - Tom could have been a co-writer, as per Bash above. Maybe that's one of the key things with a distinctive writer's voice; it has to gel with the material. This did. And, distinct as it surely was, it was mostly deft and subtly handled. I mention unfilmables, but actually that's probably unfair. They were all filmable, because they got filmed. Every damn one of them. For reasons unclear to me, I seem to have an extremely good recollection of that movie, and the script to page comparison here is so near-identical it's hardly worth bothering. 'CLOSE on Tom, looking at Summer the way every woman wants to be looked at'. Nailed it. She's 'pretty enough to get away with' her kooky hair. Gotcha. 'It should look like the dandelions originated with Tom's breath. That sort of thing. Anyway...' Hate to say, but damn that's good. Because this should really angry up my blood, but it doesn't. It works. It just does. Marc Webb should give a cut of his Spiderman take-home and every future directing dollar to these writers, because the whole damn thing's directed right there on the page. And a few of the sequences - 'You make my dreams come true', expectation/reality, I love/I hate - were inspired, and written well enough to do the ideas justice, which is the real compliment because if you get it even a little wrong it's gonna stick out like a kid who craps himself in white gym shorts. So I guess what I'm trying to say is these boys did a wonderful job of translating their idea to the page, because the vision is clear as a crackhead's tooth decay. Excelsior, gentleman. I salute you.

TBBB, that is an excellent point and expands really nicely on what I suggested previously: The movie is all about Tom's world view, his romanticized perspective of love, what you call a 'neurosis' because he is, indeed, blinded by love. I like the association with Black Swan because that, too, is one where the point of narrative attack has to be consistently the Protagonist's perspective in order to sustain the mystery: What is reality? What is a dream? What is a nightmare? To provide an objective perspective would undercut that dynamic.

Vic, thanks for that analysis. I'm not sure if you've posted before, but please continue because you offered some great insights. Let me spotlight a few of them: * this screenplay/movie pulled off something that probably happens about once every other year (at best) in this genre: it was different. A different look at love, a different angle on relationships that echoes thoughts and feelings we’ve all had to some degree (you have, admit it). Exactly. Right from the very beginning... actually before the beginning with the whole "Jenny Beckman. Bitch" business, you know you are reading a script that is setting out to be different. Most notably by indicating on P. 3, "You should know up front. This is NOT a love story." That breaks one of THE cardinal rules in Hollywood: 'Give 'em what they want,' and in rom-coms that means boy gets girl / girl gets boy. * mention unfilmables, but actually that’s probably unfair. They were all filmable, because they got filmed. Every damn one of them. For reasons unclear to me, I seem to have an extremely good recollection of that movie, and the script to page comparison here is so near-identical it’s hardly worth bothering. ‘CLOSE on Tom, looking at Summer the way every woman wants to be looked at’. Nailed it. She’s ‘pretty enough to get away with’ her kooky hair. Gotcha. ‘It should look like the dandelions originated with Tom’s breath. That sort of thing. Anyway…’ Hate to say, but damn that’s good. Because this should really angry up my blood, but it doesn’t. It works. It just does. This is all part of the choices the writer takes with "Narrative Voice," an extension of that invisible character's personality. And a quick aside about so-called 'unfilmables': Your point is well-taken about there being debates on this front, but here's my deal: There should be NO debates anymore. Ever. The idea that we can't write what actors can't act or what someone in a movie theater can't see is completely wrong. I just taught a semester-long course called "The History of American Screenwriting" and part of that research involved tracking script evolution since the 1890s. I found so-called 'unfilmables' stretching back to the silent era. For decades screenwriters have done whatever they could to tell stories the best way they can and this extends to what I call 'editorializing' in scene description, commenting on the atmosphere of the moment, or the inner feelings of a character, and on and on and on. Yes, we have to be judicious -- a screenplay is not a novel after all -- but can we once and for all lay to rest this crazy idea that there are certain things we can not write in a screenplay. It's proven wrong over and over in contemporary screenplays, and so-called 'unfilmables' have been in use for almost the entire time there have been formalized screenplays. [Vic, this is not at all directed at you because clearly you get it, but rather to unnamed figures on the other side of the divide who have a narrow-minded, literalistic approach to screenplay form and style]. Sorry, got off on a rant there! Circling back, let me spotlight this point, too: * Marc Webb should give a cut of his Spiderman take-home and every future directing dollar to these writers, because the whole damn thing’s directed right there on the page. Amen! There are a few scenes and bits of business in the script we will be reading that didn't make it into the movie, a handful of changes from script to screen, but this screenplay is predominantly directed on the page. And if people want to know how to do that without using a bunch of directing lingo, just parse this script, scene by scene, shot by shot. Again, Vic, thanks for your comments. Great stuff.

The whole entire "You Make My Dreams" bit is an expressionistic piece of work to show how Tom feels in a humorous approach, right down to Mr. Bluebird on his shoulder. And some people just see skyrockets in flight... lol. It's something we don't see too much of in cinema anymore (expressionism), but it's always used to convey the inside of a character's mind (Inception, What Dreams May Come, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, The Matrix and Dark City come to mind. We're never afforded that same sense of distortion with Summer because we're not seeing the story through her perspective. What's also nice about the expressionistic dance scene is it's somewhat called back later in the movie when we get the split screen of Tom's expectation and Tom's reality. That's very clever because it's an opportunity to dramatically show Tom's self-awareness coming to light - his despair being the result.

Wow, I just went and watched the 30 minute interview you attached to this and they bring all of this up around the 14 minute mark. Spot on! Also found this after watching it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLG_BKWr7KM

Given your study of the history -- if the unfilmables have been around for as long as films have been around, why the reputation?

I have a theory. And it goes like this. Writing a story is fundamentally a mystery. No matter how much you study the craft, how much writing you do, at a base level, when you, the writer, engage a story, you are attempting to wrangle magic. Naturally this is disconcerting to people. Everyone would like to believe that there is some secret formula or pattern to writing a great screenplay. And indeed, there has grown a cottage industry of practitioners who either state overtly or suggest in subtext that what they are promoting with their screenplay formula, paradigm or system offers THE way into knowing how to write a million dollar spec script. Over time, some of those ideas have become rather codified as being 'right' or 'rules.' And then the thing goes one step further: Some people feel emboldened to espouse the position that there is a set way to approach screenplay form or style. This is comforting to aspiring writers. Wrangling magic is one thing, but if they know that a primary slugline is supposed to look like this, or you never use the words "we see" in scene description, or you can't use 'unfilmables,' then they can believe that they actually understand the craft, at least in part. So what has happened is that the challenge of writing a story, which is as I say, fundamentally a mystery, gets reduced into something akin to producing widgets. I understand why people may want to believe that writing a great screenplay is like producing widgets... but my guess is if a writer approaches writing a screenplay like producing widgets, what they will end up with is... a bunch of widgets, and not a good story. I honestly believe there is some truth to what I'm suggesting because the most incendiary comment threads on GITS have often come from responses I give to a question about screenplay style or format in which I opine that as long as you understand the general expectations of a professional read, you basically can do whatever the hell you want in order to best convey your story. Boom! "No, you HAVE to do it THIS way!" Again I understand the desire to reduce screenwriting to a formula. And perhaps for some writers that can work. But most professional writers I know despise screenplay formulas and the people who promote them. Furthermore in trying to write distinctive, fresh, interesting, eye-catching scripts, don't you think we can do better than formulas? As screenwriter David Seltzer says, "If you go in with formula, you come out with formula." What I promote here and at SMC is to start with characters. Characters are by nature organic, vibrant, alive. That path is to go into the characters and find the story. I provide various ways to approach that process and to think about character interrelationships, but bottom line it's you and these individuals who have their own unique backstories, personalities, internal and external lives, and so forth. You've heard the old saying, "Character is plot"? Well, why not claim that as an essential truth? Why not start with characters and let THEM show you the story's structure? It's scary, it's uncertain, you have no idea where it will lead you, but it's pretty damn sure by going that route, you won't end up with a script full of widgets.

Didn't mean to hijack the thread, but the fact that Neustadter & Weber broke so many supposed screenwriting 'rules' with (500) Days puts a spotlight on the very subject of, are there any rules with re to screenwriting. I'll pick up on this with a post tomorrow or the next day because it deserves more of a public airing. Besides I'm sitting her looking at a great quote from screenwriter Larry Ferguson about the specific topic of "unfilmmables," again a professional screenwriter who derides that position.

"cottage industry of practitioners" ... such a shame when that's the extent of what so many of us have to work with at the start. "as long as you understand the general expectations of a professional read, you basically can do whatever the hell you want in order to best convey your story." There must be a fine line, though, between what's necessary for the story and what is vanity; between what adds to the read and what takes away from it. From what Vic said, Neustadter and Weber followed that line expertly. Looking forward to finally reading the script after I watch the film tomorrow.

[...] GITS Script Reading and Analysis Series: “(500) Days of Summer” (gointothestory.blcklst.com) Like it, love it, gotta share it!TwitterFacebookTumblrLinkedInEmailMoreRedditStumbleUponDiggPrintLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]

I believe the script was well written for a story of this fashion. I read some comments and reviews stating this film is a different take on love, relationships, etc. I saw it as a more realistic take on love, relationships, etc. And since the story itself is more realistic the writing (script) had to be exceptionally clever in its approach. Traditional rom films have happy endings, and we know happy endings are stories that haven't finished yet so 500DOS decides to finish it . No one wants to see a film about falling out of love... unless its well written. They did just that. The script's simplicity is its strengths. They didn't over romanticize and allowed the set-up to take the viewer on the ride with Tom. The HAPPY IKEA moment had me and my significant other busting a gut, and the NOT SO HAPPY IKEA moment had us side-eyeing each other. To get that reaction stems from well executed writing.

TBBB, from a Dramatica perspective, would you consider this story a Personal Triumph?

I started to bring this up with Jim Hull and thought I'd mull it over some more. Jim noted Tom as being a steadfast character in his review, which I can see in light of Scott's comments in that it's not really resolved at the end for Tom. For me looking at it from a Dram perspective, it's hard to say there's much of a OS and that's what really determines success/failure. Success/Failure is dictated from the inequity which brings all the characters together in the story and, without thinking about it too much, I sort of fail to see how everybody is impacted by Summer's arrival other than perhaps how they are subsequently involved via Tom's reaction to her. Within that OS would be the MC who has his own personal issues - that being Tom who's a romantic at heart, blinded by love. His personal goal of obtaining Summer isn't related to any OS goal because there really isn't one, imo. So with that in mind, I hesitate calling the outcome failure. I suppose if everyone else in the story was helping Tom be with Summer, then I'd probably bite on that and justify it as so - and there are a few brief scenes where we get some assistance - it's just most of the story is specific to the MC, IC, and relationship throughlines. Conversely, it feels like Tom ends in a better spot which would echo a personal triumph - but I think it's really an insinuation of such and not readily answered. Tom has certainly dropped his bitterness and seems truly happy for Summer, but as Scott noted, how do we know he's not going to be blinded by the romanticism bug again with Autumn? I think that is why it's important to tie into all of this the need for Tom to pursue a more meaningful career (for him at least) in architecture. That's his passion and he even says so early on. Going through the abyss with Summer made him realize that and as a result, he's now pursuing that for happiness and meaning rather than a relationship - so that, for me, certainly makes him standing on better ground either way. If we were simply looking at it in terms of meeting Autumn, I'd say it's pretty inconclusive (especially in light of him being steadfast). Sorry for the long-winded answer - I would say that's why it feels like a personal triumph (Tom doesn't get the girl but ends up the better person for it), it's just the OS isn't very well defined nor does it play a prominent role.

I see. So unless everybody in the story is affected by the inequity created, the outcome cannot be considered success/failure? The overall story goal has to be a failure and the protagonist has to succeed in his personal goal in order for it to be considered a personal triumph? Couldn't the overall story goal be the same as the protagonist's goal and thus be considered the story goal? Sorry for all the questions, I'm mostly asking myself so I can dig deeper into this! I'm still new at this Dramatica theory. I hesitate to call Tom steadfast. He might be a hopeless romantic ("It's Amanda Heller all over again.") and in a sense he was right about fate and true love and all that, at least in the eyes of Summer who changed her mind after meeting her future husband. But hasn't Tom changed in the fact that he pursues his dream of becoming an architect? I guess the question is if he would have pursued that unless he had met Summer. Did Summer change his mind by acting the way she did? "You do what you want, don't you?" he says to Summer. Maybe he realized that he should do what he wants in order to be happy, and so he changes his mindset and goes after his dream job. Perhaps a character can change in one aspect but remain steadfast in another. Yeah, why not.

Using the battlefield analogy, what are all the characters in 500DoS involved with? Why are they in the story? What causes there to be an inequity, causing forces for and against something? That's what I fail to see in this particular story. There's no inequity that involves everybody from an objective, 30,000 foot level where the protagonist works to resolve/restore equity. Part of this may be because of the causality discussion on the other thread - without a real cause, there's no solution to be provided. One merely grows from the experience. Now, if you take a movie like Rainman, it's easy to see everyone in that story is involved because of Charlie's intent to get his share of his father's inheritance. The thing that throws everybody into the story is Charlie finding out everything is being left to a brother he didn't know existed - so in that sense, the protagonist's personal goal is more aligned with the story goal: get a share of the inheritance. He subsequently fails, but ends up forming a meaningful relationship with the brother he didn't know he had while resolving issues concerning his past - hence it's a personal triumph. Outcome/Failure (because he didn't get the money) - Judgement/Good. An example of Success/Good would be Star Wars. There the inequity is caused when Darth Vader illegally boards Princess Leia's ship demanding the plans. This single act ends up involving everyone else in the story and bringing them into the mix with a story goal of restoring equity by blowing up the death star which results (at least until the sequel) with the cessation of the Empire's aggressive tactics. Within that OS is the MC/Protag Luke Skywalker who has a goal of being a great star fighter having dreamed of fighting in the rebellion. His personal goal is linked to the OS goal and both are accomplished in the same moment: by blowing up the death star, the OS story goal outcome is success while his judgement is Good as he's overcome his personal problem which no longer holds him back from succeeding. Bringing those examples back to 500DoS, there's a bit of an OS with Tom's friend, his little sister, etc., but because of the nature of the story fluctuating back and forth between positive and negative moments, we can't say they're for or against something (Tom's relationship) - it's more like their functions exist to both encourage during the initial phases, then provide support during the downfall. Picking up on your questions specifically: So unless everybody in the story is affected by the inequity created, the outcome cannot be considered success/failure? No - there has to be a goal established as a result of the inequity for an outcome to be success or failure. My problem is I'm not sure what, if anything, I would classify as causing the inequity that would push certain forces in one direction and others in the opposite. The overall story goal has to be a failure and the protagonist has to succeed in his personal goal in order for it to be considered a personal triumph? No - the outcome is tied to the goal but the judgement is tied specifically to the main character with regards to whether they've resolved their personal problem. Just to copy and paste from the definition for OS: Overall Story Line -- the plot as it concerns the story goal -- The Overall Story Line is a distinct act by act sequence of events that involves all of the Overall Story story points and none of the Subjective Story story points. It represents the dispassionate argument of the story, emphasizing events and relationships in a purely cause and effect way. This is not to say that it has nothing to do with the meaning of a story, only that it is not the WHOLE story. Meaning in stories comes from comparing the Overall Story view of a story with the Subjective view that comes from within the story. The bold segment goes back to my lack of focus on causality - without that, it's hard to pinpoint the inequity in an OS because everything that happens after that point - such as the boarding of Princess Leia's ship - causes something else to happen and we don't get that in 500DoS at all (unless I totally missed something!).

It won't let me respond to your comment,TBBB, but thanks for that response. You've given me lots to think about.

[...] GITS Script Reading and Analysis Series: “(500) Days of Summer” Share this:TwitterFacebookEmailLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. This entry was posted in Sound Design and tagged 500 days of summer, firework, love, sound design. Bookmark the permalink. [...]

I know I'm coming late to this party, but wanted to add a quick comment. I've never seen this movie and I'm only on page 5 of the script so I'm comming at this like I'm reading a spec script. You often hear readers say that they can tell good writing from page one. That was clear to me in this script. The strength of the writing was obvious right away. The very first thing I noticed is how the writers immediatly set the tone of the story. There is a little OCD/light-hearted-ness to it all. The story starts off with a VO, (uh,oh, RED FLAG!) but it's used so well. The scenes (visual) communicate a lot of the information and the Narrator adds some details. What is said is minimal and gets us setup with the two main characters by the middle of page 2. I also had the distinct impression I was being manipulated (being drawn into the story), which was quite wonderful. The detailed character descriptions paint a wonder image. Yet, I noticed the sheer lack of detail in the description of the settings. The only details we get are "blow up greeting cards" and "posters of obscure bands". Generic setting with an economy of words that leaves the details to the people (art direction?) who do that. My immediate, overall impression of this script by page 3 is that these writers know what they're doing. I have no idea if it will turn out great, the story may die on page 48, but if I'm a reader, I'm hooked and letting my defenses down by page 5 and I'm ready to go along for the ride.

[...] GITS Script Reading and Analysis Series: “(500) Days of Summer” Share this:TwitterFacebookEmailLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. This entry was posted in Sound Design and tagged 500 days of summer, firework, love, sound design. Bookmark the permalink. [...]